70
Hubble telescope discovers rare galaxy that is 99% dark matter
(www.space.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
70 points (100.0% liked)
Astronomy
6857 readers
255 users here now
A community for sharing astronomy-related news, content, research, photographs, etc.
When sharing photographs and articles, please make an effort to include source URLs.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Pretty sure things have actually been going the opposite way and we've only found more and more evidence that it's a real thing that is there, rather than finding anything that challenges that
Right, but real thing or effect <> dark matter
We've found absolutely ZERO evidence, only peculiarities with observations which point to bad models and DM is the fill in. The more we look, the less likely it seems to be as described.
LHC produced no evidence... LUX none... PandaX-II none.
So it's time to give up the particle chase IMO. We gave it our best shot at collecting evidence to support the conjecture, none found. New JWST data reveals just how bad the concept of DM is... so actually as time goes on the DM conjecture becomes weaker and weaker, not stronger as you think.
Well that's completely untrue. There's loads of observational evidence in many many many different contexts that all agree and very strongly support the existence of dark matter.
So there's not really any real faction in cosmology that denies the existence of dark matter. The most skeptical of scientists are only proposing minor tweaks to existing models and still require dark matter. Do you actually know of any credible cosmologist that claims that dark matter does not exist?
And like, yeah, of course we know the models aren't 100%, we still have more science to do and likely always will.
Plus, the measure of scientific models is usefulness, not 100% "correctness". There are several old, outdated cosmology models that we know are "wrong" and yet still use today for science, even in favor over newer "more correct" models, because they're really great at matching observations within specific conditions and constraints, which makes them very useful and valuable within those constraints. We just don't use them outside of those constraints where we know they break down.
Again, this is absolutely false. The more we look, the stronger the evidence we find to support dark matter.
EDIT: looks like you significantly edited your comment. The bottom line is that no one really agrees with you, despite the impression you might get from pop science articles, and I question whether you can name any credible scientist who is proposing a dark-matter-free model, rather than just a slightly modified model that literally still includes dark matter of some form.